COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS COMMEMORATES TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONVENTION

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families today commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the Convention with a series of discussions examining the accomplishments of the Convention, migration and development, migration and gender, and perspectives for the wider ratification and more effective implementation of the Convention.

The keynote address was delivered by Kyung-wha Kang, the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, who said that migration continued to grow in numbers because it was essential for the present and future development of many countries. But in unregulated, unprotected circumstances, migration could, and often did, lead to discrimination, abuse, exploitation and worse. Historical experience showed that migration policy, and the contribution of migration to development, would only be viable and sustainable when human rights were the foundation.

The twentieth anniversary of the Convention was an opportunity to celebrate the successful adjustment of countless migrants to their new environments, enriching their new societies with their cultures, ideas, technologies, skills, food or quite simply, the diversity that they brought, the Deputy High Commissioner said. At the same time, it was also an occasion to renew efforts to effectively address the legal, social and practical challenges that migrants faced. Ms. Kang said she was particularly concerned at the recent rise of intolerance, xenophobia and racism directed at migrants and their communities, which had sometimes manifested itself in acts of extreme violence against migrants in transit and in destination countries.

In the initial round of panel discussions dealing with the accomplishments of the Convention and migration and development, panellists said that the Convention had given rise to many misconceptions, one of which was the often expressed opinion that the Convention favoured irregular migration and that the granting of more rights to migrants would make a State more attractive to irregular migrants. A speaker also said that the high rates of migration represented the biggest failing of globalization, which was the failure to provide decent work where people lived. Various factors such as globalization and reduction in workplace protections gave employers incentives to hire migrant workers who were often forced to take whatever wages and conditions they were given. Another speaker said that one of the biggest challenges, but also the easiest to change, was the current conceptual framework surrounding the Convention. The current framework was politicized, polarized, ideological and full of stereotypes and if there was not a shift in how this issue was approached, they would not succeed in having countries take the strong measures they wanted them to take; this required a more forward thinking approach that looked at human development, shared prosperity, and shared responsibility.

In the ensuing interactive dialogue speakers cautioned that they should not lose focus of the rights-based approach to migration and the Committee had a responsibility to the rights holders to promote this approach and guard against a shift in focus from rights to a development-based focus which could treat migrants as a commodity rather than human beings. Other speakers commented that the majority of rich, Western countries had not signed the Convention and they asked what the barriers were to ratification of the Convention in these States.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Committee members, a Senegalese journalist and a representative from the Philippines.

In the afternoon the Committee held two more panel discussions that focused on women and migration and how to obtain wider ratification and better implementation of the Convention. Panellists noted that the feminization of Philippine migration patterns had been observed since the 1980s. Since then, the share of female migrants had been increasing and this trend was also taking place at the global level, with roughly half of international migrants being women. In some cases, the percentage of women migrants from a specific country in relation to total migrants could rise to 70 or 80 per cent. Another panellist noted that the migratory experience depended on the sex of the migrant and migration could open up opportunities for gender equality by providing for more economic and social autonomy and changing gender roles in society. However, there were also risks in migration which could strengthen gender inequalities by strengthening stereotypes by limiting women to domestic work or even leading to sexual exploitation. People could also be marginalized or isolated as could be the case in domestic work. This age of globalization meant free movement of capital and ideas, but also of workers. Industrialized nations would need more migrant workers in the future and this fact made this Convention all the more topical. There were persistent problems of integration, discrimination, xenophobia, and Islamophobia and receiving countries could not address these problems without cooperating with countries of origin.

In the interactive dialogues that followed each of the panels in the afternoon, speakers pointed out that many migrant workers did not seek healthcare because they were afraid of being sent back to their countries of origin and countries needed to understand that not providing healthcare had a negative impact on everyone, not just the migrant workers. One speaker said that it was disheartening to see some States, which promoted certain conventions, dismiss this one. The speaker said that it was true that there was a misperception that this Convention gave the green light to irregular migration and these people should be targeted to change their mindset. In this regard the media and national human rights institutions were invaluable. It was also noted that many decision makers in countries of destination were poorly informed about what the consequences of adopting the Convention would be and they needed to work on getting information to people and dispelling the myths surrounding the Convention.

Speaking in the interactive dialogues following the panel presentations were Committee members, representatives of non-governmental organizations CARITAS, the Association of World Citizens and the International Catholic Migration Commission, a representative from the Philippines, and a representative from the International Labour Organization.

The next public meeting of the Committee will be on Tuesday, 30 November when the Committee will continue its discussion of the draft General Comment on migrant domestic workers.

Opening Statements

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Committee Chairperson, in opening remarks said that the main reason the Convention was set up and adopted was due to an increase in migration and an increase in human trafficking that resulted from such migration flows. So the Convention really came about due to a desire to protect people during all phases of migration. The need for the Convention had only grown and the Committee wanted to ensure that the international community’s awareness translated into action. Since the Convention entered into force, there had been an increase in the rate of ratification and it was very important to continue to promote the Convention, which represented hope for so many people.

Mr. El Jamri said that in the last 20 years the Convention had engendered several encouraging developments including in the promotion of the Convention, the adoption and application by States, and the strengthening of partnerships with States parties and civil society.

KYUNG-WHA KANG, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in the keynote address noted that the adoption of the Convention by the General Assembly 20 years ago, on 18 December 1990, was a milestone in the field of human rights, extending protection to one of the most vulnerable groups found anywhere. Today, the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers featured as one of the core United Nations human rights treaties, providing standards for domestic law that recognized the specific vulnerabilities of migrants. It promoted humane working and living conditions for migrant workers and set out the rights of the often neglected accompanying family members. It also provided guidance for migration policies based on enforceable legal standards.

Ms. Kang said that migration continued to grow in numbers because it was essential for the present and future development of many countries. But in unregulated, unprotected circumstances, migration could, and often did, lead to discrimination, abuse, exploitation and worse. Historical experience showed that migration policy, and the contribution of migration to development, would only be viable and sustainable when human rights were the foundation.

The twentieth anniversary of the Convention was an opportunity to celebrate the successful adjustment of countless migrants to their new environments, enriching their new societies with their cultures, ideas, technologies, skills, food or quite simply, the diversity that they brought. At the same time, it was also an occasion to renew efforts to effectively address the legal, social and practical challenges that migrants faced. Ms. Kang said she was particularly concerned at the recent rise of intolerance, xenophobia and racism directed at migrants and their communities, which had sometimes manifested itself in acts of extreme violence against migrants in transit and in destination countries.

Empowering migrants to claim their rights required supportive and pro-active policy measures. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as the current chair of the Global Migration Group, had sought to promote and mainstream a human rights-based approach to migration within the UN system and beyond, and to highlight key migration and human rights issues at the international level. Under the leadership of the High Commissioner, the Global Migration Principals’ meeting on 30 September of this year adopted an historic joint statement on the protection of the human rights of all migrants, particularly on the most vulnerable among them, migrants in an irregular situation.

Ms. Kang said that the 1990 Convention had become the recognized symbol, the sign post, as well as the legal standard for the treatment of migrant workers. As with other legal obligations, full implementation demanded considerable efforts and resources. The Convention provided benchmarks, a normative framework, and a set of guidelines for policy makers aimed at ensuring that migration policies were anchored in a system of rights and corresponding obligations. The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families was a unique space for international dialogue on the protection of the rights of migrants, the exchange of good practices in this area, and the strengthening of migration governance. Through its State reporting, individual complaints and inquiries procedures, the Committee served as an important international mechanism of accountability.

In closing, Ms. Kang urged all States that had not yet done so to ratify the Convention. For States that were already parties to the Convention, she encouraged them to make the declarations provided for in articles 76 and 77 of the Convention recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive communications from States parties and individuals. Most of all, she urged everyone – States, civil society, international organizations and all concerned stakeholders – individually and collectively to make the rights guaranteed in the Convention a reality.

GUY RYDER, Executive Director of the International Labour Organization, said that today, more than ever, the challenges of the protection of migrant workers and the regulation of migration were central issues for decent work, for economic performance and for governance around the world. Migration continued to grow in numbers because it was essential for the present and future well-being, if not economic survival, of many countries. Nearly a century of efforts by the International Labour Organization amply showed that protection of migrant workers’ rights was inseparable from obtaining decent work and consequently achieving human and economic development. A recent International Labour Organization estimate indicated that 105 million of the total of 214 million people living outside of their countries of birth or citizenship in 2010 were economically active. That was to say that most if not nearly all migrants of working age were employed, self employed, or otherwise engaged in remunerative activity.

Mr. Ryder said that migration today had become an essential feature of globalization and it represented the internationalization of labour mobility. It was about the increasing demand for skills and labour in countries with aging populations and undergoing industrial and technological transformations. Sadly, migration also remained a consequence of a lack of development and sometimes a lack of respect for human rights in some countries. This international labour and skills mobility provided a growing number of countries with people, professionals and workers, that they needed to keep their economies working. In turn, remittances, skills and knowledge transfers, investments and international business activity accelerated by migration contributed significantly to economic and social advances in origin as well as destination countries. However, the migratory and employment experience for many migrants was lack of respect for their rights and dignity as human beings. This meant abuse and exploitation in work places, absence of health and safety protections, and often non-payment of wages. It also meant the denial of the fundamental freedoms of association and collective bargaining rights. Migrant workers in irregular situations were even more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

Mr. Ryder went on to say that historical experience showed that reducing exploitation and ensuring equality of treatment were essential elements for building prosperity, social cohesion, and democratic governance. A comprehensive body of law recognizing and providing for the protection of the rights of migrants evolved over the last century. Several instruments, each building on the previous, reflected the historical experience that well-being and social peace could only be sustained by democratic rule and under the rule of law. In contrast, non-protection of a substantial group of people posed a serious challenge to the rule of law, democratic governance and social cohesion. The non-application of international standards risked formalizing socially marginalized, legally unprotected and often racially differentiated groups, a differentiation all too often justified by reinforcement of exclusive ethnic and national identities. Recent manifestations of discontent and sometimes violent protests along with police repression in communities of immigrant origin around the world highlighted the threat to social cohesion arising from exclusion.

International law provided protections for migrant workers that were essential for maintaining social cohesion and supporting migrants’ contributions to development. These principles and their application to non-nationals were universal norms laid out in fundamental international human rights instruments and in complementary International Labour Standards. Migrants in an authorized status were entitled to equality of treatment and non-discrimination vis-à-vis nationals in employment and work; only this would prevent unfair competition, and ensure equitable labour markets and decent work for national and foreign workers alike. Universal human rights applied to all migrants, regardless of immigration status. All were human beings and must be treated as such in law and policy; doing otherwise was license for exclusion and social conflict. The use of such terminology as “illegal” migration and “illegal migrants” exacerbated the exclusion of migrants in irregular situations because it denied their humanity, implying that they were not entitled to human rights protection.

Panel Discussion on the Accomplishments of the Convention

PRASAD KARIYAWASAM, Committee Member of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, said that the Convention was the most comprehensive international treaty dealing with migrant workers and it was one of the core international human rights treaties. The Convention in particular facilitated the protection of certain rights that were of special relevance to migrants by among other things, assisting governments in the development of strategies to prevent illegal migration movements.

Mr. Kariyawasam said that the Convention had given rise to many misconceptions, one of which was the often expressed opinion that the Convention favoured irregular migration and that the granting of more rights to migrants would make a State more attractive to irregular migrants. On the contrary, the Convention obliged States parties to take measures to counter illegal migration. The concept of giving rights to irregular migrants was inspired not only by the basic principle of respect for the dignity of all human beings, but also by the desire to discourage recourse by employers to irregular labour by making such recruitment much less economically advantageous. It was also possible that the contents of some provisions of the Convention might be unacceptable to some States because provision of some rights might be perceived as beyond the economic and social capacity and imperatives of a particular State. However, the Convention itself foresaw this possibility and had provided for entering reservations to the application of certain articles. Therefore, this constraint could be overcome by a careful study of the compatibility of the domestic legislation with the rights contained in the Convention.

Mr. Kariyawasam said that in his view ultimately all these fears lacked credibility and it was a matter of political will, and not resource constraints, that was holding States back on this account. This Convention was not an instrument for a more liberal immigration policy, but rather sought to ensure that all human rights were accorded to migrant workers too, in recognition of the fact that they were part of the large human family.

Mr. Kariyawasam went on to say that it was important to treat all people with dignity and to enforce human rights and on the twentieth anniversary of the Convention it was time to take it to the next level with more ratifications and wider implementation to protect the rights of stakeholders.

PATRICK TARAN, of the International Labour Organization, said that in some countries migration represented 15 to 20 per cent of the workforce. He said that the high rates of migration represented the biggest failing of globalization, which was the failure to provide decent work where people lived. Various factors such as globalization and reduction in workplace protections gave employers incentives to hire migrant workers who were often forced to take whatever wages and conditions they were given. Studies showed that migrant workers were the victims of workplace accidents at higher rates than other workers and were vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

The body of legal texts regarding the protection of migrant workers rights were based on three principles: the equality of treatment and non-discrimination, an understanding that universal human rights applied to all migrants regardless of legal status in country of destination, and the universal applicability of labour standards.

Mr. Taran said that the achievements of the Convention included developing a rights based approach to migration as well as providing a rallying point to make human rights an issue in migration which was not the case 20 years ago. However, despite all that the Convention had accomplished there was still a long road ahead.

JOHN BINGHAM, of the International Catholic Migration Commission, said he also wanted to celebrate what the Convention would accomplish in another 10 years. But how did they accomplish greater ratifications? First, the myths about the Convention had to be put to rest, one of which was that very few States had ratified the Convention. The States parties to the Convention were not just sending countries either. In fact, the list of States parties included a growing number of countries that were important transit and destination countries, among them Algeria, Argentina, Egypt, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Syria and Turkey.

Mr. Bingham said that civil society had also noticed a shift in those countries that had been hostile to the Convention who were now asking whether the Convention could be practical and possibly the international framework they had been looking for. This shift in international policy debates could be used to increase the number of ratifications as States and civil society became increasingly engaged on this issue. This shift in the debate was being helped along by the widening development of regional and international frameworks that touched important aspects of migration and articulated rights and protections for migrants and migrant workers. This included protocols on international trafficking and smuggling as well as the International Labour Organization’s development of a Convention on domestic workers and the development of the Committee’s General Comment on migrant domestic workers.

In the next decade Mr. Bingham said he foresaw three changes happening that would lead to the wider use of the Convention: changing demographics would increase the demands of migrants for their basic rights and protections; the rise of the principle of reciprocity between States who would recognize that they had to protect immigrants within their own borders if they wanted their citizens to be protected abroad; and a critical mass of experience and assessment of the Convention as a practical tool of cooperation.

JUAN JOSE GOMEZ CAMACHO, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that for the last 40 years Mexico had espoused a strong migration foreign policy, which for years had been based on the notion of human rights and the Convention and its ratification and largely aimed at the United States. This policy was based on working globally to promote the Convention and working on the ground in the United States. They had built the most impressive infrastructure for the protection of Mexican migrants in the United States with a network of 50 consulates around the country with lawyers and health services. As a country, they had to take care of their people on the ground, but this has also informed their treatment of immigrants in Mexico.

The domestic debate on migration in countries was highly political and emotional and the careers of many politicians depended on issues like this. Mexico was complementing its traditional strategy of pushing for the Convention with a focus on a more comprehensive, global, holistic approach to migration. Mr. Camacho said there was no such thing as an on/off switch for political will so they had to campaign for this political will to be applied. Even in Mexico, it took years to ratify the Convention and this was because political systems were highly complex and if they wanted to advance the Convention they had to learn how to deal with these systems and the political decision-making in various countries as well as the domestic debate on these issues. There was not only a need to address the will or lack of will to ratify the Convention, but also the broader economic, social and political contexts that blocked the way ahead.

One of the biggest challenges, but also the easiest to change, was the current conceptual framework surrounding the Convention. The current framework was politicized, polarized, ideological and full of stereotypes and if there was not a shift in how this issue was approached, they would not succeed in having countries take the string measures they wanted them to take; this required a more forward thinking approach that looked at human development, shared prosperity, and shared responsibility. It took some time, but it opened the way for more open, transparent, successful discussions that allowed room for discussions without triggering alarm bells for politicians back home among their constituents.

Mr. Camacho said that Mexico would always keep the Convention in the forefront, but it would be part of a larger approach because if they only focused on campaigning for the ratification of the Convention they would fail. They had to be more strategic and political and change the discussion on migration.

Panel Discussion on Migration, Development and the Convention

INNOCENCE NTAP NDIAYE, Minister of Labour and Professional Organizations of Senegal, said that migrants faced many problems such as xenophobia, denial of their rights, racism, and degrading treatment so she applauded the work of the Committee. She said that migration was not a scourge or a curse; it was a powerful mechanism that if properly organized could provide benefits to migrants and their families and to the countries of origin and destination. Migration provided remittances that could be used to fund economic and construction projects. One estimate said that 30 to 40 per cent of all remittances to Africa went to rural areas and sometimes exceeded private capital in countries and accounted for a sizable portion of gross domestic product in countries. Remittances were a financial windfall that helped in the reduction of poverty and helped to develop countries.

There was an office in Senegal that worked on mobilizing remittances from Senegalese living abroad and had resulted in over 50 projects in and outside the country. Remittances also made it possible to reduce child labour and migration helped in global productivity by allowing migrants to work where they were most needed. Ms. Ndiaye said that circular migration was also an important source of trade and knowledge exchange.

Ms. Ndiaye said that statistical reporting would allow States to obtain better data to help steer migration policies and there should also be more of a focus on female migrants. She went on to say that migration policy should be based on four pillars including: the principle of productive work for decent wages; social dialogue; fundamental labour standards; and promoting social protection. Migration must be seen as a win-win process for everyone involved. Recognizing what was at stake in terms of remittances, the African Union Commission had set up the African Institute for Monetary Remittances with help from the World Bank.

ELISABETH CUBIAS MEDINA, Member of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, said that respect of the human rights of migrant workers was crucial to the integration of migrants which would help them to better contribute to host countries. It was also essential that they had access to reliable information to avoid difficulties in host countries and to help prevent human trafficking. People in destination countries should also be informed about how to combat racism and xenophobia and people had to combat the ideas that migrant workers were burdens or threats. It was important to include the media and national and local authorities in these information and awareness-raising campaigns.

For workers recruited to work abroad, it was necessary to control employment agencies and other intermediaries in the migration process to avoid abuse and trafficking. It was also important to guarantee equal pay and protection for male and female migrant workers because this would de-incentivize employers hiring irregular workers and exploiting them. Ensuring the respect of the human rights of irregular migrant workers was also important, both in the countries of origin and destination.

MICHELLE KLEIN SOLOMON, of the International Organization for Migration, said that international migration was related to development on a number of different levels, including the development of migrants themselves, the development of their households, and the development of the communities and countries they leave and the countries they join. The 2009 United Nations Development Program Human Development report stressed that large gains to human development could be achieved by lowering the barriers to movement and improving the treatment of movers. At the same time, migration stimulated cultural and economic exchanges among nations, which in turn could help promote peace and a broad range of goals of the United Nations and the international community at large.

As highlighted in the Global Migration Handbook, enjoyment of human rights enhanced the capacity of migrants to contribute to the development of their home and host society. For example, a migrant whose rights were respected was better able to be economically productive in the country of employment, as well as to make a positive social and cultural contribution to the host society. A migrant worker whose rights were respected was also better able to send financial remittances back to his or her family and home community, providing greater opportunities for the realization of their rights, including education, housing and healthcare. The social remittances that protected migrants could provide, such as their knowledge, skills and networks, could help bring whole families and communities out of poverty.

In terms of contributions of the Convention on Migrant Workers, Ms. Klein Solomon said that the Convention contained provisions that could facilitate contributions to the development of both the origin and destination countries. Moreover, provisions that protected the rights of irregular migrant workers and members of their families reduced the negative effects of irregular migration in the country of employment. There were also provisions in the Convention that helped to promote rights and obligations in countries of origin as well as fostered inter-State cooperation that was crucial to enhancing the sustainable development of both the country of origin and the country of employment.

Interactive Dialogue

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, a Committee member noted that on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention, there was a feeling that the Convention needed to be protected as well as migrant workers and their rights. The Expert cautioned that they should not lose focus of the rights-based approach and the Committee had a responsibility to the rights holders to promote this approach and guard against a shift in focus from rights to a development-based focus which could treat migrants as a commodity rather than human beings.

Other speakers commented that the majority of rich, Western countries had not signed the Convention and they asked what the barriers were to ratification of the Convention in these States. The representative from Senegal was also asked about the rights of Senegalese workers to export their social security benefits if they were living abroad. The panellists were also asked how to keep the rights-based approach as central to the work of disparate agencies and fora working on migration.

In responding to some of the questions raised, Ms. Ndiaye said that with regard to the portability of social security benefits for Senegalese emigrants, this was part of the State’s bilateral legislation and they hoped to develop this international cooperation. In responding to questions surrounding a rights-based approach to migration, Mr. Taran said that it was clear that the current trend was toward deregulation in terms of how the economy was structured and how people working in those economies were treated. The stakes were enormous in terms of migrants and their vulnerability and often resulted in lower wages and worse working conditions. When migrants were not protected by national law it was possible to provide differential treatment and the Convention was a symbol of something larger, which was the standard minimal defence and equal treatment of all workers.

Ms. Solomon said that while migration was not new, in many respects the administrative field of managing migration was a new one for many governments around the world so things like research, upholding rights and other areas were new for many States. The latest International Organization for Migration report on human development stressed that now all countries were origin, destination and transit countries so governments had to develop new capacities to limit abuse and protect rights.

Panel Discussion on Gender, Migration and the Convention

EVAN P. GARCIA, Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that women and migration was a very pertinent topic as over 50 per cent of overseas Filipino workers were women. The majority of female Filipinos who decided to migrate abroad were employed as household service workers, nurses and caregivers.

The feminization of Philippine migration patterns had been observed since the 1980s. Since then, the share of female migrants had been increasing and this trend was also taking place at the global level, with roughly half of international migrants being women. In some cases, the percentage of women migrants from a specific country in relation to total migrants could rise to 70 or 80 per cent. The fact of the matter that could not be denied was that women were migrating more as main economic providers of their households than ever before. The human face of migration was increasingly a woman’s face. Migration was increasingly a gendered experience and because of this the importance of securing universal human rights standards and protection was of paramount importance and thus a gender perspective needed to be applied to a rights-based approach to migration and development.

Mr. Garcia said that on one hand, migration had empowered the Filipino woman. Traditionally, while the woman had often handled the finances of the household in the Philippines, in an era of large scale migration, she had become in many families the main breadwinner. Women migrants were said to remit more on a regular basis to families back home and also to save more of their wages. Women had thus become true agents of economic growth and social progress, and contributed significantly to poverty reduction and fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals.

On the other hand, there was often a very high price to pay for female migrants and this could be described as their increased vulnerability to commoditization for commercial and exploitative purposes, including for sexual exploitation and human trafficking, and increased gender-based human rights abuses. These vulnerabilities often translated into chronic low wages, lack of social security and recognition by the law, and severe human and psychological costs for migrants and their families. Due to these real dangers faced by millions of female migrants on a daily basis, he could only reiterate the urgent need for wider ratification of the Convention on migrant workers by destination countries.

Mr. Garcia said that the question was how to move from principles embodied in the Convention and International Labour Organization conventions to actual protection. The solution in his mind lay in the wider application of gender-sensitive approaches and perspectives while promoting and applying universal human rights norms and standards in all stages of the migration process. This required taking a closer look at the aspects of vulnerability of women migrants, such as the “invisibility” of migrant domestic workers, asymmetry of information, lack of social protection, poor labour standards, violence against women migrant workers, proper identification of victims of human trafficking, and fighting discrimination and stereotypes based on gender. Men and women also had different needs in relation to health and social services.

In conclusion, Mr. Garcia said that States could not work on their own. More needed to be done on the bilateral, regional and international levels to promote gender perspectives in migration and development.

MYRIAM POUSSI, Committee Member, the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, said despite its importance, gender equality, was often ignored in the context of migration. The migratory experience depended on the sex of the migrant and this had to be taken into account. Migration could open up opportunities for gender equality by providing for more economic and social autonomy and changing gender roles in society. However, there were also risks in migration which could strengthen gender inequalities by strengthening stereotypes by limiting women to domestic work or even leading to sexual exploitation. People could also be marginalized or isolated as could be the case in domestic work.

A gender perspective was a strategy that looked at the implementation of the concerns of men and women into policies to achieve equality so that both men and women benefited from these policies. The empowerment of women was a precondition for economic development and growth. When one looked at the constantly evolving numbers, gender based issues raised a whole set of questions such as those about the roles of women, the jobs that were open to women, risks faced by women, questions of residence permits for families, domestic violence and the impact on the status of migrant women, health care, the invisibility of domestic work, and the cohesion of families. These were just a few of the reasons a gender perspective had to be integrated into the application of the Convention.

Ms. Poussi said that a number of issues continued to come up when the gender aspect of migration was discussed by the Committee and these included the need for data and statistics as well human trafficking and sexual exploitation. The Convention could be used by States to promote bilateral agreements between origin and destination countries to ensure better contracts for female migrant workers and other ways. Women were vulnerable because they were migrants and women and factoring in gender did not mean that States had to reformulate their policies, but rather they should ask themselves these questions regarding gender when applying their policies and to have a broader vision of development and migration rather than just as an economic issue.

GENEVIEVE GENCIANOS, of Public Services International, said she wanted to discuss how the Convention was actually being used by the people on the ground to negotiate and bargain collectively for workers. Before they could sit down and negotiate with parties, they had to be supported by obligations and with this Convention they were able to ensure there was equal treatment and a level playing field. This meant the principle of non-discrimination and equal protection was applied and it reduced the invisibility of these workers and brought them out of the shadows.

With regards to regular migrant workers, it was crucial that there was freedom of association and to bargain collectively and this Convention was the most comprehensive embodiment of the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of migrant workers. Governments must commit to protecting the rights of workers and civil society should agitate for States to ratify this Convention and look at the underlying causes of migration.

Ms. Gencianos said that Public Services International trade unions were working to promote ethical recruitment methods for healthcare and social care workers. The Convention, along with International Labour Organization conventions, contained human rights norms, principles and standards that could act as guidelines for developing ethical principles for the recruitment of workers. When one talked about the demographic changes and the aging population, largely in the industrialized countries, this meant that migration would only increase as workers moved to find work in the healthcare industry to take care of these aging populations. In this regard, the vulnerabilities of women needed to stressed and addressed in the context of migration.

Interactive Dialogue

A Committee member asked if trade unions focused on domestic workers as a constituency. How and what could be done to organize these workers? A Committee Expert asked what challenges and barriers civil society organizations encountered when they dealt with governments regarding the ratification of the Convention. Another Committee Expert asked why migration to countries that did not respect the rights of migrant workers had not been banned, while another one asked how States protected their citizens who might migrate to a country that had not ratified the Convention and did not respect the rights of its own citizens, let alone migrant workers. How did a State do this on a practical level?

A representative from a non-governmental organization said that the Committee’s draft General Comment on migrant domestic workers was timely and they hoped the twentieth anniversary would be marked by the adoption of this General Comment. The speaker also asked the Committee to urge States to design migration policies which provided affordable, safe and legal migration of women.

Another speaker pointed out that many migrant workers did not seek healthcare because they were afraid of being sent back to their countries of origin. Countries needed to understand that not providing healthcare had a negative effect on everyone, not just the migrant workers.

In addressing some of the issues raised for the panel, Mr. Garcia said that the Convention was abedrock principal, but at the same time as a government they had to be practical and protect their people overseas, even in countries that had not signed the treaty. This could be done through regional or bilateral agreements as well. Also, women faced unique problems that men did not face and often women who went abroad did not have as much education as men and so it was very important that women be advised of their rights before they left. There was only so much a country could do on its own, so receiving countries were an important part of the equation as well. Local governments were also becoming more sensitized to the needs of migrants. In terms of protecting the rights of domestic workers specifically, the Philippines supported the draft convention being worked on at the International Labour Organization. In terms of protecting its citizens, the Ambassador said they used dialogue and consular networks to protect its citizens as much as they could and they also tried to look for laws in those countries that provided protection for workers and women and so on. All UN member countries subscribed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so this could be used as well.

Ms. Gencianos said that ensuring the right to health was essential for protecting the rights of migrant workers and civil society had a role in ensuring that these services were safeguarded. Most of the workers who sought preventive and emergency healthcare were women and it was critical that everyone in the territory could access these services. In terms of banning migration to countries that did not respect workers’ rights, the debate should be about why workers moved across borders in the first place.

Panel Discussion on the Wider Ratification and More Effective implementation of the Convention
OGUZ DEMIRALP, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Turkey had been working very hard to promote the rights of migrant workers within the Council of Europe. He underlined the need for this Convention and said it was better understood in an historical perspective, by going back to the 1970s when many industrialized countries invited a labour force to work there and what they got were human beings; this was at the root of these issues because human beings needed legal protections and human rights protections. Even in countries where human rights were relatively advanced, there were shortcomings in this field and they did not offer enough legal protections for the migrant workers that they recruited there. Most of the action that had been taken was at the national level, some things had been done at the regional level, and thanks to the initiative of the United Nations and countries of origins this Convention was now active at the international level.

Mr. Demiralp said he hoped countries that had not ratified the Convention would do so. It was not enough to say that their domestic laws were sufficient. This age of globalization meant free movement of capital and ideas, but also of workers. Industrialized nations would need more migrant workers in the future and this fact made this Convention all the more topical. There were persistent problems of integration, discrimination, xenophobia, and Islamophobia and receiving countries could not address these problems without cooperating with countries of origin. The adoption of the resolution on the protection of migrants at the United Nations General Assembly was a good sign.

AHMADOU TALL, Committee Member, the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, said the estimated 214 million migrant workers worldwide represented 3 per cent of the world population. Modern transport and communications, the search for better working and living conditions or better opportunities for their children or simply to escape poverty would ensure that migration would continue to grow. Undocumented and irregular migrants and members of their families often faced vulnerable and precarious conditions and the risk of discrimination, and the Convention sought to provide the institutional and judicial framework to guarantee the respect of the fundamental rights of these people and their inherent human dignity.

Mr. Tall said that the integration of migrant workers and their families required the enjoyment of all human rights. Based on examples in Belgium and France, there was no real obstacle to ratification of the Convention by countries in the north, and in fact ratification on a large scale would facilitate cooperation between States to develop more humane and decent migration policies and help eradicate clandestine migration flows.

Information and awareness campaigns were needed to make people more familiar with the Convention, especially for those people who needed to implement the laws such as lawyers, judges, security forces, work inspectors, and employer organizations; without appropriate training those responsible for implementing the law on a daily basis would have difficulty doing so. Mr. Tall said that it was fundamental that States parties take legislative measures and rules that could be applied by judicial authorities, immigration services, work inspectors and security forces.

One could say that migrants contributed to national economic development of both the State of origin and the destination country and the improvement of their living and working conditions as well as respect of their fundamental rights was a major imperative of each State. The Convention was an essential instrument for the provision of decent, equitable and dignified conditions for migrant workers and members of their families and to combat marginalization and social exclusion of migrants in irregular situations.

MARIKA SIDOTI, of the non-governmental organization December 18, said that when it came to campaigning for the ratification of the Convention, they could not underestimate the role played by non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations. To this day, groups across the world were raising awareness about the Convention, building coalitions with other stakeholders and engaging in advocacy work.

What they had learned over the years was that to enhance the effectiveness of the actions for the ratification of the Convention, they needed comprehensive and focused campaigns that brought together all stakeholders within a particular geographic context which meant that they had to set up structures and approaches that encouraged and allowed for collaboration between civil society actors, academics, international agencies, political parties and parliamentarians, national human rights institutions, local and regional governments and States parties to the Convention. Such collaboration had to be built from the bottom up, starting at the local level.

Ms. Sidoti said that as long as only 22 per cent of UN Member States had ratified the Convention, it was indeed useful to take a closer look at the combined implementation of the other core international human rights treaties. They provided an alternative avenue to monitor whether national legislation, policies and practices of other countries protected migrant workers and members of their families. This work could also provide them with a tool for further advocacy because ratification of the other core treaties was used as one of the main arguments against ratification.

Their research findings indicated a growing visibility of the rights of migrants and members of their families within the human rights monitoring system, which was a welcome evolution. Over one half of the concluding observations made some reference to migrant related issues. More research was needed to assess the real impact and potential of using the other core human rights treaties to protect migrant workers’ rights and to address the many human rights abuses which migrant workers faced all over the world.

Interactive Dialogue

One speaker said that it was disheartening to see some States, which promoted certain conventions, dismiss the migrants convention. The speaker said that it was true that there was a misperception that this Convention gave the green light to irregular migration and these people should be targeted to change their mindset. In this regard the media and national human rights institutions were invaluable.

A Committee member said that many decision makers were poorly informed about what the consequences of adopting the Convention would be and they needed to work on getting information to people and the myths surrounding the Convention had to be dispelled. Another Committee member said it might be time to have active interventions, with the High Commissioner for Human Rights calling countries to ask them what their reservations were to ratifying the Convention and the Committee had to get the High Commissioner more invested in migrant rights. This whole issue was based on economics and perhaps this was why the rights-based approach was not moving as quickly as everyone hoped.

JOHN BINGHAM, of the International Catholic Migration Commission, questioned whether the governments of countries would come together as a cluster to call on other countries to ratify this Convention for the protection of its nationals. Some countries were worried about doing this in the fear that it would adversely affect their nationals abroad. But what if they came together as a group to advocate for this?

PATRICK TARAN, of the International Labour Organization, pointed out that there was no one working full time on the ratification of this Convention. Everyone said they supported the increased promotion of the Convention and yet there was a lack of resources devoted to this purpose. They had to think of ways in which to support those people who were advocating for ratification on the ground in these countries and to mobilize the constituencies such as trade organizations and other groups when they sensed that there was a willingness of a government to ratify the treaty.

AHMADOU TALL, Committee Member, said it was important that countries of origin negotiate as a group with destination countries and this Committee would continue to engage with larger groups on this issue such as the European Union for example.

Concluding Remarks

CARLA EDELENBOSS, of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that in terms of what the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was doing, they were organizing an event in Brussels to draw attention to the Convention as well as a regional seminar in Cameroon with several countries in that region. The High Commissioner and her Office had made the promotion of migrants’ rights one of the six priority themes of this biennium and as a consequence the office would hold several events on the promotion of the rights of migrants. As a chair of the Global Migration Group, the High Commissioner had made an effort to steer the Group toward the protection of the rights of irregular migrants and she had also attended the Global Forum on Migration and Development in Mexico and advocated for the Convention there as well.

PATRICK TARAN, of the International Labour Organization, underlined that giving visibility at this event echoed what happened in Mexico at the Global Forum on Migration and Development. The High Commissioner had the courage to talk about the Convention even after she had been instructed by several governments not to. This Convention could be used not only to guarantee the rights of migrants, but also as a tool of governance in the managing, regulating and governing of migration, which was one of the most pressing issues of our time.

JOHN BINGHAM, of the International Catholic Migration Commission, said that this Convention was an essential reference and a signpost and as they heard the field of migration management was a new field. Cooperation across borders was where the strength of this Convention was to be found and Mr. Bingham believed this was what would increase the number of ratifications in the next 10 years.

ABDELHAMID EL JAMRI, Committee Chairperson, said today’s event had shown that there was a great deal of will for implementing the Convention and that it was a place for cooperation. It was also a tool for building migration policies and there was scientific work being done in the field, it was not just theory. States parties had said that the Convention was a guide to orient public policy on migration and also a guide on actions to protect their migrants. The Convention could also be used as a tool in the struggle against racism and xenophobia. The Convention needed work and the Committee would continue to work on it through discussions with States parties and civil society. The Convention was more visible today and there were meetings on migration around the world and the Convention was always present and prior there was not much reference to it. Mr. El Jamri thanked everyone for their participation and their rich contributions.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CMW10/011E